Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
366
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
*
G.R.No.153559.June8,2004.
367
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
367
Peoplevs.Comadre
missionofthecrimebutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobe
at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.The trial court is
likewise correct in disregarding appellants defense of alibi and denial. For
thedefenseofalibitoprosper,theaccusedmustprovenotonlythathewas
atsomeotherplaceatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimebutalsothat
it was physically impossible for him to be at the locusdelicti or within its
immediatevicinity.
Same Same Positive Identification The positive identification of the
appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and
Gerry Bullanday prevails over their defense of alibi and denial.Apart
from testifying with respect to the distance of their houses from that of
JaimeAgbanlogsresidence,appellantswereunabletogiveanyexplanation
andneitherweretheyabletoshowthatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforthem
to be at the scene of the crime. Hence, the positive identification of the
appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and
GerryBullandayprevailsovertheirdefenseofalibianddenial.
Evidence, Judges Judgment The fact that the judge who heard the
evidenceisnottheonewhorenderedthejudgmentandthatforthatreason
the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnessesduringtrialbutmerelyreliedontherecordsofthecasedoesnot
render the judgment erroneous.It is not unusual for a judge who did not
tryacasetodecideitonthebasisoftherecordforthetrialjudgemighthave
died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. As far back as the case of
CoTaov.CourtofAppealswehaveheld:Thefactthatthejudgewhoheard
the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and that for that
reasonthelatterdidnothavetheopportunitytoobservethedemeanorofthe
witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does
notrenderthejudgmenterroneous.Thisrulehadbeenfollowedforquitea
longtime,andthereisnoreasontogoagainsttheprinciplenow.
Criminal Law Murder Aggravating Circumstances Conspiracy
Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
required.Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is
the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather
thanmerecognizanceorapprovalofanillegalactisrequired.
SameSameSameSameMere presence of a person at the scene of
the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship.A conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusiveevidence.Itmustbeshowntoexistasclearlyandconvincinglyas
thecommissionofthecrimeitself.Merepresenceofapersonatthesceneof
368
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
368
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship.
Same Same Same Treachery Elements.The evidence shows that
George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any participation in the
commissionofthecrimeandmustthereforebesetfree.Theirmerepresence
atthesceneofthecrimeaswellastheircloserelationshipwithAntonioare
insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no
positiveactinfurtheranceofthecrime.
Same Same Same Same When the killing is perpetrated with
treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a
qualifyingcircumstance.Whenthekillingisperpetratedwithtreacheryand
by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance.Notonlydoesjurisprudencesupportthisviewbutalso,since
theuseofexplosivesistheprincipalmodeofattack,reasondictatesthatthis
attendantcircumstanceshouldqualifytheoffenseinsteadoftreacherywhich
willthenberelegatedmerelyasagenericaggravatingcircumstance.
Same Same Illegal Possession of Firearms The amendatory law,
R.A. 8294, was enacted not to decriminalize illegal possession of firearms
andexplosives,buttolowertheirpenaltiesinordertorationalizetheminto
more acceptable and realistic levels.With the enactment on June 6, 1997
of Republic Act No. 8294 which also considers the use of explosives as an
aggravatingcircumstance,thereisaneedtomakethenecessaryclarification
insofar as the legal implications of the said amendatory law visvis the
qualifyingcircumstanceofbymeansofexplosionunderArticle248ofthe
Revised Penal Code are concerned. Corollary thereto is the issue of which
law should be applied in the instant case. R.A. No. 8294 was a reaction to
the onerous and anachronistic penalties imposed under the old illegal
possession of firearms law, P.D. 1866, which prevailed during the
tumultuous years of the Marcos dictatorship. The amendatory law was
enacted, not to decriminalize illegal possession of firearms and explosives,
buttolowertheirpenaltiesinordertorationalizethemintomoreacceptable
andrealisticlevels.
SameSameSameWhentheillegallypossessedexplosivesareusedto
commitanyofthecrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthe
death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866,
but it shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance.This
legislative intent is conspicuously reflected in the reduction of the
corresponding penalties for illegal possession of firearms, or ammunitions
and other related crimes under the amendatory law. Under Section 2 of the
said law, the penalties for unlawful possession of explosives are also
lowered.Specifically,whentheillegallypossessedexplosivesareusedto
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
369
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
369
Peoplevs.Comadre
commitanyofthecrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthe
death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866,
butitshallbeconsideredonlyasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Same Same Same Congress clearly intended R.A. No. 8294 to
considerasaggravatingcircumstance,insteadofaseparateoffense,illegal
possession of firearms and explosives when such possession is used to
commit other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.With the removal of
death as a penalty and the insertion of the term x x x as an aggravating
circumstance, the unmistakable import is to downgrade the penalty for
illegal possession of explosives and consider its use merely as an
aggravating circumstance. Clearly, Congress intended R.A. No. 8294 to
reduce the penalty for illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Also,
Congress clearly intended R.A. No. 8294 to consider as aggravating
circumstance, instead of a separate offense, illegal possession of firearms
andexplosiveswhensuchpossessionisusedtocommitothercrimesunder
theRevisedPenalCode.
SameSameSameThelegislativepurposeofR.A.8294istodoaway
withtheuseofexplosivesasaseparatecrimeandtomakesuchusemerely
anaggravatingcircumstanceinthecommissionofanycrimealreadydefined
in the Revised Penal Code.It must be made clear, however, that RA No.
8294 did not amend the definition of murder under Article 248, but merely
madetheuseofexplosivesanaggravatingcircumstancewhenresortedtoin
committing any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code. The
legislative purpose is to do away with the use of explosives as a separate
crime and to make such use merely an aggravating circumstance in the
commissionofanycrimealreadydefinedintheRevisedPenalCode.Thus,
RA No. 8294 merely added the use of unlicensed explosives as one of the
aggravatingcircumstancesspecifiedinArticle14oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Like the aggravating circumstance of explosion in paragraph 12, evident
premeditationinparagraph13,ortreacheryinparagraph16ofArticle14,
the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No. 8294 does not change
thedefinitionofmurderinArticle248.
SameSameSameBefore the use of unlawfully possessed explosives
can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be
adequately established that the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the
accusediswithoutthecorrespondingauthorityorpermittopossess.Even
if favorable to the appellant, R.A. No. 8294 still cannot be made applicable
in this case. Before the use of unlawfully possessed explosives can be
properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be adequately
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
established that the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the accused is
without the corresponding authority or permit to possess. This follows the
samerequisitesintheprosecutionofcrimesinvolvingillegal
370
370
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
possessionoffirearmwhichisakindredorrelatedoffenseunderP.D.1866,
asamended.Thisproofdoesnotobtaininthepresentcase.Notonlywasit
not alleged in the information, but no evidence was adduced by the
prosecution to show that the possession by appellant of the explosive was
unlawful.
SameSameSame Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, requires the averment of aggravating circumstances for their
application.The information in this case does not allege that appellant
Antonio Comadre had unlawfully possessed or that he had no authority to
possessthegrenadethatheusedinthekillingandattemptedkillings.Evenif
it were alleged, its presence was not proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, requires the averment of aggravating circumstances for their
application.
SameSameSameTheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesinthe
Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to
favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed, the rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes
with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity that when the
crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions.
TheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesintheRevisedPenalCode,
which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by
imposingasinglepenaltyirrespectiveofthecrimescommitted.Therationale
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal
impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed
bydifferentactsandseveralcriminalresolutions.
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
NuevaEcija,Br.39.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
DomingoV.Pascuaforappellants.
PERCURIAM:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
AppellantsAntonioComadre,GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozano
were charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder in an
informationwhichreads:
Thatonoraboutthe6thofAugust1995,atBrgy.SanPedro,Lupao,Nueva
Ecija,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonor
371
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
371
Peoplevs.Comadre
Onarraignment,appellantspleadednotguilty. Trialonthemerits
thenensued.
As culled from the records, at around 7:00 in the evening of3
August6,1995,RobertAgbanlog,JimmyWabe,GerryBullanday,
Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on
the terrace of the house of Roberts father, Barangay Councilman
Jaime Agbanlog, situated in Barangay San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva
Ecija. Jaime Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the
terrace
4
listeningtotheconversationofthecompanionsofhisson.
As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed
appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
walking. The three stopped in front of the house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an object which
fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
immediately fled by
5
scalingthefenceofanearbyschool.
The object, which turned out to be a hand grenade, exploded
rippingaholeintheroofofthehouse.RobertAgbanlog,Jimmy
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
1Rollo,p.17.
2Record,pp.2729.
3AlsoreferredtoasJerryBullandayintherecords.
4TSN,October12,1995,p.4March6,1996,p.3March21,1996,p.2July10,
1996,pp.23.
5TSN,October12,1995,p.5March6,1996,pp.23July10,1996,pp.24.
372
372
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
Wabe,GerryBullanday,ReyCamatandLorenzoEugeniowerehit
6
by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all
rushedtotheSanJoseGeneralHospitalinLupao,NuevaEcijafor
medicaltreatment.However,RobertAgbanlogdiedbeforereaching
7
thehospital.
Dr.TirsodelosSantos,themedicolegalofficerwhoconducted
the autopsy on the cadaver of Robert Agbanlog, certified that the
wounds sustained by the victim were consistent with the injuries
inflicted by a grenade explosion and that the direct cause of8 death
was hypovolemic shock due to hand grenade explosion. The
surviving victims, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
Jaime Agbanlog and
9
GerryBullandaysustainedshrapnelinjuries.
SPO3 John Barraceros of the Lupao Municipal Police Station,
who investigated the scene of the crime, recovered metallic
fragments at the terrace of the Agbanlog house. These fragments
were forwarded to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Division in
Camp Crame, Quezon City, where SPO2 Jesus Q. Mamaril, a
specialist in said
division, identified them as shrapnel of an MK2
10
handgrenade.
Denying the charges against him, appellant Antonio Comadre
claimed that on the night of August 6, 1995, he was with his wife
andchildrenwatchingtelevisioninthehouseofhisfather,Patricio,
andhisbrother,Rogelio.Hedeniedanyparticipationintheincident
and claimed that he was surprised when three policemen from the
Lupao Municipal Police Station went to his house the following
morning of August 7, 1995 and asked him to go
with them to the
11
policestation,wherehehasbeendetainedsince.
Appellant George Comadre, for his part, testified that he is the
brother of Antonio Comadre and the brotherinlaw of Danilo
Lozano. He also denied any involvement in the grenadethrowing
incident,claimingthathewasathomewhenithappened.He
_______________
6TSN,October12,1995,pp.57March6,1996,pp.45March21,1996,p.3July
10,1996,p.3.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
7TSN,March21,1996,pp.46.
8Record,pp.1011.
9TSN,October12,1995,p.10March6,1996,p.10March21,1996,p.5July10,
1996,pp.67.
10Record,p.299.
11TSN,August28,1998,pp.79.
373
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
373
Peoplevs.Comadre
statedthatheisafriendofReyCamatandJimmyWabe,andthathe
hadnoanimositytowardsthemwhatsoever.Appellantalsoclaimed
tobeingoodtermswiththeAgbanlogssohehasnoreasontocause
12
themanygrief.
AppellantDaniloLozanosimilarlydeniedanycomplicityinthe
crime.Hedeclaredthathewasathomewithhistenyearoldsonon
thenightofAugust6,1995.HeaddedthathedidnotseeAntonio
and George Comadre that night and has not seen them for quite
sometime, either before or after the incident. Like the two other
appellants,LozanodeniedhavinganymisunderstandingwithJaime
13
Agbanlog,RobertAgbanlogandJimmyWabe.
Antonios father, Patricio, and his wife, Lolita, corroborated his
claimthathewasathomewatchingtelevisionwiththemduringthe
14
nightinquestion. JosieComadre,Georgeswife,testifiedthather
husband could not have been among those who threw a hand
grenade at the house of the Agbanlogs because on the evening of
August 6, 1995, they
were resting inside their house after working
15
alldayinthefarm.
After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecutions
evidenceandconvictedappellantsofthecomplexcrimeofMurder
16
withMultipleAttemptedMurder, the dispositiveportion ofwhich
states:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1. Finding accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo
LozanoGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecomplexcrimeof
Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing them to
suffertheimposablepenaltyofdeath
2. OrderingAntonioComadre,GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozanoto
pay jointly and severally the heirs of Robert Agbanlog P50,000.00
as indemnification for his death, P35,000.00 as compensatory
damagesandP20,000.00asmoraldamages
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
12TSN,August5,1998,pp.28.
13TSN,December3,1998,pp.310.
14TSN,January7,1999,pp.78April9,1999,pp.68.
15TSN,July30,1999,pp.35.
16PennedbyJudgeBayaniV.VargasoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity,
Branch39.
374
374
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
3. Ordering accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo
Lozano to pay jointly and severally Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
Gerry Bullanday and Jaime Agbanlog P30,000.00 as indemnity for
theirattemptedmurder.
Costsagainsttheaccused.
SOORDERED.
Hence,thisautomaticreviewpursuanttoArticle47oftheRevised
Penal Code, as amended. Appellants contend that the trial court
erred: (1) when it did not correctly and judiciously interpret and
appreciate the evidence and thus, the miscarriage of justice was
obviously omnipresent (2) when it imposed on the accused
appellants thesupremepenalty ofdeath despite the evident lackof
the quantum of evidence to convict them of the crime charged
beyondreasonabledoubtand(3)whenitdidnotapplythelawand
jurisprudencefortheacquittaloftheaccusedappellantsofthecrime
17
charged.
Appellantspointtotheinconsistenciesintheswornstatementsof
JimmyWabe,ReyCamat,LorenzoEugenioandGerryBullandayin
identifying the perpetrators. Wabe, Camat and Eugenio initially
executedaSinumpaangSalaysayonAugust7,1995atthehospital
wherein they did not categorically state who the culprit was but
merely named Antonio Comadre as a suspect. Gerry Bullanday
declared that he suspected Antonio Comadre as one of the culprits
becausehesawthelatterstenyearoldsonbringsomethinginthe
nearbystorebeforetheexplosionoccurred.
OnAugust27,1995,ortwentydayslater,theywenttothepolice
station to give a more detailed account of the incident, this time
identifying Antonio Comadre as the perpetrator together with
GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozano.
A closer scrutiny of the records shows that no contradiction
actually exists, as all sworn statements pointed to the same
perpetrators, namely, Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano. Moreover, it appears that the first statement was
executed a day after the incident, when Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
andLorenzoEugeniowerestillinthehospitalfortheinjuriesthey
sustained. Coherence could not thus be expected in view of their
condition.Itisthereforenotsurprisingforthewitnessestocome
_______________
17Rollo,pp.6768.
375
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
375
Peoplevs.Comadre
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
19Peoplev.Patalin,G.R.No.125539,27July1999,311SCRA186citingPeople
vs.Agunias,G.R.No.121993,12September1997,279SCRA52.
20Peoplev.Abundo,G.R.No.138233,18January2001,349SCRA577.
376
376
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
11/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
377
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
377
Peoplevs.Comadre
Similartothephysicalactconstitutingthecrimeitself,theelements
of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is
therulethattoestablishconspiracy,evidenceofactualcooperation
rather than
mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
26
required.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
thecommissionofthecrimeitself.Merepresenceofapersonatthe
sceneofthecrimedoesnotmakehimaconspiratorforconspiracy
27
transcendscompanionship.
The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
did not have any participation in the commission of the crime and
must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the
crimeaswellastheircloserelationshipwithAntonioareinsufficient
toestablishconspiracyconsideringthattheyperformednopositive
actinfurtheranceofthecrime.
NeitherwasitproventhattheiractofrunningawaywithAntonio
was an act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The
ratiocination of the trial court that their presence provided
encouragementandsenseofsecuritytoAntonio,isdevoidofany
factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the evidence on
record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of
conspiracy.
Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it
wouldbebettertosetfreetenmenwhomightbeprobablyguiltyof
thecrimechargedthantoconvictoneinnocentmanforacrimehe
28
didnotcommit. Therebeingnoconspiracy,onlyAntonioComadre
mustanswerforthecrime.
Coming now to Antonios liability, we find that the trial court
correctlyruledthattreacheryattendedthecommissionofthecrime.
Fortreacherytobeappreciatedtwoconditionsmustconcur:(1)the
means, method and form of execution employed gave the person
attackednoopportunitytodefendhimselforretaliateand(2)such
means,methodsandformofexecutionwasdeliberately
_______________
26Peoplev.Tabuso,G.R.No.113708,26October1999,317SCRA454.
27Peoplev.Bolivar,G.R.No.108174,28October1999,317SCRA577.
28Peoplev.Capili,G.R.No.130588,8June2000,333SCRA354.
378
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
378
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
andaccompaniedbyareport.UnitedLife,FireandMarineInsurance,Inc.v.Foote,22
OhioSt.348,10AmRep735,citedinBouviersLawDictionary,ThirdRevision,Vol.
1 also defined in Wadsworth v. Marshall, 88 Me 263, 34 A 30, as a bursting with
violenceandloudnoise,causedbyinternalpressure.
30Art.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetuatodeathifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
xxxxxxxxx
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or
employingmeanstoweakenthedefense,orofmeansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity
xxxxxxxxx
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding or a vessel,
derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallofanairship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwith
theuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.(Italicssupplied)
379
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
379
Peoplevs.Comadre
31
but also,
13/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
31
stance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also,
since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack, reason
dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense
insteadoftreacherywhichwillthenberelegatedmerelyasageneric
32
aggravatingcircumstance.
Incidentally,withtheenactmentonJune6,1997ofRepublicAct
33
No. 8294 which also considers the use of explosives as an
aggravating circumstance, there is a need to make the necessary
clarificationinsofarasthelegalimplicationsofthesaidamendatory
law visvis the qualifying circumstance of by means of
explosion under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code are
concerned. Corollary thereto is the issue of which law should be
appliedintheinstantcase.
R.A. No. 8294 was a reaction to the onerous and anachronistic
penalties imposed under the old illegal possession of firearms law,
P.D. 1866, which prevailed during the tumultuous years of the
Marcos dictatorship. The amendatory law was enacted, not to
decriminalize illegal possession of firearms and explosives, but to
lower their penalties in order
to rationalize them into more
34
acceptableandrealisticlevels.
_______________
31 People v. Tayo, G.R. No. L52798, 19 February 1986, 141 SCRA 393,
citing
Peoplev.Guillen,85Phil.307Peoplev.GallegoandSoriano,82Phil.335Peoplev.
Agcaoili,86Phil.549Peoplev.Francisco,94Phil.975.
32Peoplev.Tintero,G.R.No.L30435,15February1982,111SCRA704Peoplev.
Asibar,G.R.No.L37255,23October1982,117SCRA856.
33Entitled:AnActAmendingtheProvisionsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,As
amendmentsunderHouseBillNo.8820,nowR.A.8294:
1. reductionofpenaltiesforsimpleillegalpossessionoffirearmsorexplosives
fromtheexistingreclusionperpetuatoprisioncorreccionalorprisionmayor,
dependinguponthetypeoffirearmpossessed
2. repeal of the incongruous provision imposing capital punishment for the
offenseofillegalpossessionoffirearmsandexplosivesinfurtheranceoforin
pursuitofrebellionorinsurrection.
380
380
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
Thislegislativeintentisconspicuouslyreflectedinthereductionof
the corresponding penalties for illegal possession of firearms, or
ammunitions and other related crimes under the amendatory law.
Under Section 2 of the said law, the penalties for unlawful
possession of explosives are also lowered. Specifically, when the
illegallypossessedexplosivesareusedtocommitanyofthecrimes
undertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthedeathofaperson,
thepenaltyisnolongerdeath,unlikeinP.D.No.1866,butitshall
beconsideredonlyasanaggravatingcircumstance.Section3ofP.D.
No.1866asamendedbySection2ofR.A.8294nowreads:
Section2.Section3ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,asamended,ishereby
furtheramendedtoreadasfollows:
Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
Possession of Explosives.The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
periodtoreclusiontemporalandafineofnotlessthanFiftythousandpesos
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture,assemble,dealin,acquire,disposeorpossesshandgre
_______________
The same rationale was the moving force behind Senate Bill 1148 as articulated by then
SenatorMiriamDefensorSantiagoinhersponsorshipspeech:
Theissueofdisproportionisconspicuousnotonlywhenwemakeacomparisonwiththeotherlaws,but
also when we make a comparison of the various offenses defined within the existing law itself. Under
P.D. No. 1866, the offense of simple possession is punished with the same penalty as that imposed for
much more serious offenses such as unlawful manufacture, sale, or disposition of firearms and
ammunition.
xxxxxxxxx
It was only during the years of martial law1972 and 1983that the penalty for illegal possession
made a stratospheric leap. Under P.D. No. 9 promulgated in 1972the first year of martial lawthe
penalty suddenly became the mandatory penalty of death, if the unlicensed firearm was used in the
commission of crimes. Subsequently, under P.D. No. 1866, promulgated in 1983during the last few
yearsofmartiallawthepenaltywassetatitspresentonerouslevel.
The lesson of history is that a democratic, constitutional, and civilian government imposes a very
low penalty for simple possession. It is only an undemocratic martial law regimea law unto itself
whichimposesanextremelyharshpenaltyforsimplepossession.
381
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
381
Peoplevs.Comadre
nade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not limited to
pillbox, molotov cocktail bombs, fire bombs, or other incendiary
devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or
causinginjuryordeathtoanyperson.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
Withtheremovalofdeathasapenaltyandtheinsertionoftheterm
xxxasanaggravatingcircumstance,theunmistakableimportis
to downgrade the penalty for illegal possession of explosives and
consideritsusemerelyasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Clearly,CongressintendedR.A.No.8294toreducethepenalty
for illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Also, Congress
clearly intended RA No. 8294 to consider as aggravating
circumstance, instead of a separate offense, illegal possession of
firearms and explosives when such possession is used to commit
othercrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode.
Itmustbemadeclear,however,thatRANo.8294didnotamend
thedefinitionofmurderunderArticle248,butmerelymadetheuse
of explosives an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in
committinganyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCode.
Thelegislativepurposeistodoawaywiththeuseofexplosivesasa
separate crime and to make such use merely an aggravating
circumstanceinthecommissionofanycrimealreadydefinedinthe
Revised Penal Code. Thus, RA No. 8294 merely added the use of
unlicensed explosives as one of the aggravating circumstances
specified in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Like the
aggravating circumstance of explosion in paragraph 12, evident
premeditation in paragraph 13, or treachery in paragraph 16 of
Article 14, the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No.
8294doesnotchangethedefinitionofmurderinArticle248.
Nonetheless, even if favorable to the appellant, R.A. No. 8294
still cannot be made applicable in this case. Before the use of
unlawfully possessed explosives can be properly appreciated as an
aggravatingcircumstance,itmustbeadequatelyestablishedthat
382
382
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
16/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact that the
accusedwhoownedorpossessedthefirearmdoesnothavethecorrespondinglicense
orpermittopossess.See:Peoplev.Solayao,G.R.No.119220,20September1996,262
SCRA255Peoplev.Lualhati,234SCRA325(1994)Peoplev.Damaso,212SCRA
547(1992).
36AnActAmendingtheProvisionsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,asamended,
Codewhichstatesinpartthattheoffensesofseduction,abduction,rapeoractsof
lasciviousness,shallnotbeprosecutedexceptuponcomplaintbytheoffendedpartyor
her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by the abovementioned persons, as the case may be. In this
context,orhasthesameeffectastheconjunctivetermand.
38Subtitled:Section3.UnlawfulManufacture,Sale,Acquisition,Dispositionor
PossessionofExplosiveswherethemodifierunlawfuldescribesthemanufacture,
sale,etc.of,amongothers,explosives.
383
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
383
Peoplevs.Comadre
17/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
designationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute,avertheactsoromissionsconstituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designationoftheoffenses,referenceshallbemadetothesectionorsubsectionofthe
statutepunishingit.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
statedinordinaryandconciselanguageandnotnecessarilyinthelanguageusedinthe
statutebutintermssufficienttoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknow
whatoffenseisbeingchargedaswellasitsqualifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
andforthecourttopronouncejudgment.
40Peoplev.Manansala,G.R. No. 147149, 9 July 2003, 405 SCRA 481People v.
Paulino,G.R.No.148810,18November2003,416SCRA122.
384
384
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
18/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
Art.48.Penaltyforcomplexcrimes.Whenasingleactconstitutestwoor
moregraveorlessgravefelonies,orwhenanoffenseisanecessarymeans
of committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed,thesametobeappliedinitsmaximumperiod.
TheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesintheRevisedPenal
Code,whichfollowstheproreo principle, is intended to favor the
accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed.Therationalebeing,thattheaccusedwhocommitstwo
crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminalresolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may
quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct
offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be
consideredonlyasasinglecrimeinlawonwhichasinglepenaltyis
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single
criminal
41
impulsewhichshowshislesserdegreeofperversity.
Undertheaforecitedarticle,whenasingleactconstitutestwoor
more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period irrespective of the presence of modifying circumstances,
including
the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery in this
42
case. Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum
penaltyforthemostseriouscrime(murder)isdeath.Thetrialcourt,
therefore,correctlyimposedthedeathpenalty.
Three justices of the Court, however, continue to maintain the
unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death
penalty.Nevertheless,theysubmittotherulingofthemajoritytothe
effectthatthelawisconstitutionalandthatthedeathpenaltycanbe
lawfullyimposedinthecaseatbar.
Finally,thetrialcourtawardedtotheparentsofthevictimRobert
AgbanlogcivilindemnityintheamountofP50,000.00,P35,000.00
ascompensatorydamagesandP20,000.00asmoral
_______________
41Peoplev.Sakam,61Phil.27Peoplev.Manantan,94Phil.831.
42Peoplev.Guillen,G.R.No.L1477,18January1950.
385
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
385
Peoplevs.Comadre
43
19/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
prosecutionwasabletosubstantiateonlytheamountofP18,000.00
44
asfuneralexpenses.
Theawardofmoraldamagesisappropriatetherebeingevidence
toshowemotionalsufferingonthepartoftheheirsofthedeceased,
but the same must be increased
to P50,000.00 in accordance with
45
prevailingjudicialpolicy.
With respect to the surviving victims Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy
Wabe, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday, the trial court awarded
P30,000.00eachfortheinjuriestheysustained.Wefindthisaward
inappropriatebecausetheywerenotabletopresentasinglereceipt
to substantiate their claims. Nonetheless, since it appears that they
areentitledtoactualdamagesalthoughtheamountthereofcannotbe
determined, they
should be awarded temperate damages of
46
P25,000.00each.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed
decisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity,Branch39in
Criminal Case No. L16(95) is AFFIRMED insofar as appellant
AntonioComadreisconvictedofthecomplexcrimeofMurderwith
Multiple Attempted Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P18,000.00 as actual damages and likewise ordered to pay the
surviving victims, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat and
Gerry Bullanday, P25,000.00 each as temperate damages for the
injuries they sustained. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo
Lozano are ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish
conspiracy, and they are hereby ordered immediately RELEASED
from confinement unless they are lawfully held in custody for
anothercause.Costsdeoficio.
_______________
43Peoplev.Delim,G.R.No.142773,28January2003,396SCRA386.
44RTCRecord,Vol.1,p.170,ExhibitJTSN,21March1996,p.10.
45Peoplev.Caballero,G.R.Nos.14902830,2April2003,400SCRA424People
v.Galvez,G.R.No.1300397,17January2002,374SCRA10TSN,March21,1996,p.
11.
46Peoplev.Abrazaldo,G.R.No.124392,7February2003,397SCRA137.
386
386
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
20/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
YnaresSantiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez,
Corona,CarpioMorales,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
Callejo, Sr., J., Please see my concurring and dissenting
opinion.
CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
I concur with the majority that the appellant Antonio Comadre is
guilty of murder for the death of Robert Agbanlog, and multiple
attempted murder for the injuries sustained by the other victims. I
dissent,however,fromtherulingofthemajoritythatthekillingof
Agbanlogisqualifiedbytheuseofexplosivesandnotbytreachery.
UnderSection3ofP.D.No.1866whichtookeffectonJune29,
1983, any person who commits any of the crimes defined in the
RevisedPenalCodewiththeuseofexplosives,detonationagentsor
incendiary devices which results in1the death of a person shall be
sentencedtosufferthedeathpenalty. However,withtheonsetofthe
1987 Constitution, the imposition of the death penalty was
suspended.
Under paragraph 3, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amendedbyRepublicActNo.7659,theuseofexplosivesinkilling
apersonisacircumstancewhichqualifiesthekillingtomurder,the
imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death. When
the crimes were committed by the appellants on August 6, 1995,
Rep. Act No. 7659 was already on effect. But while the case was
pending,Rep.ActNo.8294wasapprovedonJune6,1997.Section
2ofthelatterlawprovidesthatwhenapersoncommits
_______________
1AnypersonwhocommitsanyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCodeor
special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or
incendiary devices, which results in the death of any person or persons shall be
punishedwiththepenaltyofdeath.
387
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
387
Peoplevs.Comadre
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
21/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
anyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCodewiththeuseof
explosives,detonationagentsorincendiarydeviceswhichresultsin
thedeathofanypersonorpersons,theuseofsuchexplosives,etc.
shallbeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal
Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any
person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or
incendiarydevicesshallbeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Paragraph3ofArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended
byRep.ActNo.7659,was,thus,amendedbySection2ofRep.Act
No.8294.Underthelatterlaw,theuseofahandgrenadeinkilling
thevictimwasdowngradedfrombeingaqualifyingcircumstanceto
ameregenericaggravatingcircumstance.ConsideringthatSection2
ofRep.ActNo.8294isfavorabletotheappellants,thesameshould
2
beappliedretroactively. Consideringthefactualmilieuinthiscase,
the generic aggravating circumstance of the use of explosives is
absorbedbythequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery.
JudgmentastoAntonioComadreaffirmed,GeorgeComadreand
DaniloLozanoacquittedandorderedreleased.
Notes.Theamendatorylaw(RepublicActNo.8294)doesnot
add to the existing elements of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms. What it does is merely to excuse the accused from
prosecution of the same in case another crime is committed.
(Margarejovs.Escoses,365SCRA190[2001])
Under RepublicActNo. 8294,the useof an unlicensed firearm
in the commission of homicide or murder is no longer treated as a
separate offense, but only as a special aggravating circumstance.
(Peoplevs.Arondain,366SCRA98[2001])
o0o
_______________
2 Art. 2. Retroactive effect of penal laws.Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effectinsofarastheyfavorthepersonguiltyofafelony,whoisnotahabitualcriminal,
asthistermisdefinedinRule5ofArticle62ofthisCode,althoughatthetimeofthe
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
servingthesame.
388
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
22/23
9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
23/23